The court considered the specific allegations and the relationship of the accused with the complainant's husband to determine the validity of the quashing petition, highlighting the principle of avoiding the abuse of court process.

V.M.Jain, J.

1. This is a petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C., filed by the accused-petitioners, seeking quashment of F.I.R. 95 dated 19.5.1992 Under Sections 406/498 A, I.P.C., as also the report Under Section 173, Cr. P.C. and all subsequent proceedings, including charges dated 16.9.1993.

2. The petitioners are the father-in-law, the mother-in-law, the brothers and the Bhabhi of Devinder Singh, husband of the complainant, respondent No. 2, Smt. Manjinder Kaur. They filed the present petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid F.I.R., the challan and subsequent proceedings, including the charges Under Sections 406/34 and 498/34, I.P.C., framed against them, on the ground that they had been falsely implicated in the case, being related to Devinder Singh, husband of the complainant.

3. I have heard learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

4. As referred to above, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, are the parents-in-law of the complainant, whereas petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the complainant, Smt. Manjinder Kaur. In the F.I.R., which was registered by the Police, on the basis of the complaint, copy Annexure P-l, submitted before the Police, it was alleged that she was maltreated by the accused on account of insufficient dowry and for not meeting the demand for the dowry made by the accused. It was alleged that in October, 1991, she was turned out of the matrimonial home, after giving her beatings by her husband, Devinder Singh and her mother-in-law, Surjit Kaur, while the other accused, namely Sher Singh, Surinder Singh, Narinder Singh and Harinder Kaur, were watching and exhorting them to turn her out. It was alleged that in November, 1991, she delivered a female child, but no one came to see the child and the accused refused to rehabilitate her in the matrimonial home.

5. From a perusal of the complaint, copy Annexure P-l, which was made the basis for the recording the F.I.R., copy Annexure P-3, in my opinion, it would be clear that no case for quashing the aforesaid F.I.R. and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon, including the charges framed on 16.9.1993, is made out in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely Sher Singh and Surjit Kaur (parents-in-law), considering their close relationship with Devinder Singh, husband of the complainant. So far as petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are concerned, they are the brothers and Bhabhi of Devinder Singh. No specific allegation had been levelled against them in the FIR. On the other hand, only vague allegations have been levelled against them. It appears that the petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 have been falsely implicated in this case only in order to harass them, considering that they are related to Devinder Singh (husband). In my opinion, the continuation of the proceedings against petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 would amount to abuse of process of Court. This is especially so when there is a general tendency to rope in almost all the relatives of the husband.

6. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is partly allowed and the F.I.R., the challan and further proceedings, including the charges framed on 16.9.1993 against petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are hereby quashed. So far as petition on behalf of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely Sher Singh and Surjit Kaur (parents-in-law) is concerned, the same is hereby dismissed.

7. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, through their Counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 4.2.2002 for further proceedings in accordance with law.